Alarm systems are well known in the art for use with homes or businesses. In a typical business or home alarm, a number of sensors may be provided to detect various conditions. Examples of these sensors include door and window sensors, motion sensors, glass break detectors, heat and fire sensors, flood sensors and sprinkler system pressure sensors. When one of these sensors is activated (e.g., burglary or fire occurs, or false alarm) the sensor communicates with a control panel.
The control panel, typically microprocessor controlled, may receive sensor signals, as well as signals from sensors indicating sensor tampering, battery status, and sensor maintenance status. From a predetermined program, the microprocessor may determine whether an alarm should be sounded (e.g., Police or Fire), sound the appropriate alarm, and telephone an alarm company to indicate an alarm condition exists.
Most radio frequency (RF) wireless security systems available today, such as those manufactured by Alarm Manufacturing Device Co. (ADEMCO) 165 Eileen Way, Syosset, N.Y. 11791, employ a multiplicity of transmitters in communication with a central receiver control unit. The information transmitted typically describes the state of various transducers or sensors associated with each transmitter, such as smoke, motion, breaking glass, shock and vibration detectors, door, window and floor mat switches, and the like. These transmitters are designed to be inexpensive to manufacture.
Most of these alarm systems are manufactured by a few main alarm system manufacturers. As such, such standardized equipment is relatively inexpensive to purchase, maintain, repair and replace. However, some major alarm companies which do large volumes of nationwide business have purchased from these major alarm manufacturers, specialized or “proprietary” versions of these standardized alarm systems.
The reasons for modifying the standardized alarm system are many. For some large alarm companies, the alarm equipment is leased to the consumer, and the alarm company does not want the equipment to be readily used by others. In other instances, where the alarm equipment is sold to the consumer, the use of a “proprietary” version of the alarm system makes it more difficult for the consumer to switch to different alarm monitoring companies.
It should be noted that the term “proprietary” as used here (and as is used in the alarm industry) does not necessarily imply that these modified alarm systems employ any protected intellectual property (e.g., Patents, Copyrights, trade secrets) above and beyond the underlying standard alarm system technology. Rather, the changes to the system to make it “proprietary” relate more to changing the coding used to report alarms, pre-programming of telephone numbers and the like (e.g., 1-800 number to report alarms) and coding used to communicate from the alarm monitoring company to the alarm system (for maintenance and the like).
By slightly altering this coding (e.g., via PROM chip within the control panel or the like) the alarm company has made it much more difficult for a third party alarm monitoring company to monitor the alarm system. Extensive re-programming may be required by a service technician at the site to reprogram the alarm dial-up numbers and alarm codes to conform to the third party alarm monitoring companies numbers and codes.
Such reprogramming may require temporary installation of a programming control panel, as typical consumer control panels may not provide sufficient feedback for programming purposes (e.g., limited display capabilities). Moreover, such programming requires the skills and experience of a knowledgeable technician in the field. Such knowledgeable technicians are hard to come by, expensive to train, and difficult to retain. Improper programming can result in all alarm system settings being lost and even the system being locked out, requiring extensive manual re-programming and “learning” by activating each sensor in the system.
Moreover, the hourly rate of a skilled alarm technician is higher than a standard alarm technician. Thus, if a third party alarm company wants to “convert” a customer (with proprietary equipment) from a major alarm company, considerable cost must be incurred to re-program the consumer's alarm system. As a third party alarm monitoring company may be competing on price, this re-programming adds cost to the alarm company's bottom line, making them less competitive, which is exactly the reason the major alarm companies use proprietary systems in the first place—to keep customers captive.
Moreover, in some instances, it may not be possible at all to reprogram the alarm system. The alarm system may be so modified (or indeed, custom made for the major alarm company) that it cannot be reprogrammed for use with any other alarm company. In such a scenario, the third party alarm company would have to install a whole new alarm system (or at least a new control panel), which may not be cost-effective.
Without competition in the marketplace, the consumer may find themselves in a difficult situation—stuck with an expensive alarm system that would be prohibitive in cost to replace, and stuck with an alarm monitoring company that may be providing inadequate service at whatever prices it chooses to dictate.
A solution allowing for greater consumer choice would improve competition in the marketplace. Such a solution should be easy to install, inexpensive, and not require the services of a skilled alarm technician.
It can be appreciated that digital data communicators have been in use for years. However, a digital translator for an alarm system is not known to exist. The main problem with digital communicators is that they require a considerable amount of time to be installed by a skilled technician. Another problem is that a digital alarm communicator system manufactured in the past may not have the ability to accept new dialing patterns or other changes as required by the communications industry (e.g., move to 10-digit phone numbers or the like).
Another problem with a digital alarm communicator system manufactured in the past may be the requirement that communication only occur with a digital alarm communicator receiver that was manufactured by a specific company. Thus, for example, if an alarm monitoring company wishes to monitor a number of different customers who use different brands of equipment, the alarm company may need to purchase separate central station monitoring equipment for each brand of alarm monitored.
This central station monitoring equipment (i.e., equipment at the alarm company monitoring headquarters) can be fairly expensive to purchase. Moreover, the use of different brands of monitoring equipment requires having the skills to repair and maintain the different brands of central station monitoring equipment. Alarm monitoring personnel may need to be trained on different types of equipment and monitor different equipment simultaneously. In addition, since each system may be separate, it may be difficult to provide a single display or interface to the alarm monitor personnel or to record or log alarms in a single central system.
Another problem with a digital alarm communicator system is that some manufacturers of digital alarm communicator systems have ceased supporting the dialers or other hardware or have gone out of business—consequently leaving the consumer with no choice but to replace installed equipment with new equipment. Another problem with existing products is that the original installing company may have gone out of business, depriving the new provider of essential information necessary to reprogram the existing system.
Digital data translators per se, are known in the art. For example, Barclay, U.S. Pat. No. 6,311,072, issued Oct. 30, 2001 and incorporated herein by reference, discloses an apparatus for translating between telephone signaling protocols. However, this system, assigned to Lucent Technologies, appears to be designed more for interfacing complete telephone systems together, rather than interfacing between two devices on the same phone system.
Thus, the apparatus of Barclay is a fairly complex device (e.g., using Sun Sparc workstations) designed for a specific type of interface between two phone systems. In contrast, in the Alarm industry, there is a need to interface existing alarm systems of many different types to a receiver system at a very low installed cost. A complex interface network such as in Barclay (assuming arguendo such a system would even be applicable) would be too specialized and costly to use.
Wulforst et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,272,212, issued Aug. 7, 2001, and incorporated herein by reference, discloses a telephone intercept apparatus. The apparatus monitors outgoing telephone numbers and disconnects the telecommunications equipment from the telephone company network and redirects the call to a different number.
Such simple redialers merely redirect a call to a different telephone number. While such a device may have some utility, additional data may need to be translated in order for an alarm system to be successfully redirected to a new alarm monitoring company.
Third party alarm monitoring companies may be interested in obtaining customers (“conversions”) provided by other alarm companies. However, such third party alarm monitoring companies may not be interested in investing in the technology and hardware necessary to translate data from other types of alarm systems to conform with their own equipment. Moreover, customer account numbers and other data from converted customers may conflict or duplicate data from existing customers.
In addition, alarm monitoring companies may wish to implement additional extra-cost services to enhance revenue streams and provide additional alarm utility for clients. However again, such alarm monitoring companies may not wish to invest in the equipment necessary for such additional services. Moreover, third parties may wish to offer these services without forcing the customer to change alarm monitoring companies.
It may be possible to provide such hardware as a call-intercept device in the customer's home. However, with each additional data conversion or additional service, the complexity of such a home telephone intercept device increases. In order to keep costs down, the nature of a telephone intercept device may need to be kept simple.
Thus, a need exists in the art for an apparatus and system which allows for data from converted alarm customers to be translated, modified, or enhanced without significantly altering the alarm equipment at the alarm monitoring company or without providing an unduly complex home intercept device.
In addition, there exists a need in the art to track alarm events in a manner not previously offered by conventional alarm monitoring companies. Typical alarm systems log when a user arms or disarms an alarm system, and this information is often communicated to the alarm monitoring company. Heretofore, no method has been employed to keep track of this data or use this data in a manner useful to the customer.